I think great coaches are great coaches regardless of gender. You can’t win at the level he is in the women’s game simply because there is more elite talent to go around.

 

Disagree. There is so little "elite" talent that when you get the best of the best of a small pool you can dominate. He may be a great coach but to assume he'd be really successful in the men's game just because of his domination in the women's is a huge leap of faith.

No way Geno could do in the Men's game what he has in the Women's game.

 

That said, he could absolutely coach and be very successful doing so in the Men's game, to think he wouldn't be successful is just shortsighted and wrong.

 

No one is saying he wouldn't be "successful." It's just a matter of HOW successful. Using his women's success to assume he'd be really successful or one of the top coaches is like assuming Gerry Faust would have been a great , successful coach.

No one is saying he wouldn't be "successful." It's just a matter of HOW successful. Using his women's success to assume he'd be really successful or one of the top coaches is like assuming Gerry Faust would have been a great , successful coach.

 

No one ever confused Gerry Faust as the best at what he did...:lol2: He probably wasn't even the best high school coach in Cincinnatti at the time let alone the country.

 

I can't stand UConn or Geno, but the dude can flat coach...not just X's and O's but motivating and pushing players to be better than anyone else.

 

We'll never know because he's not leaving there, just like Pat Summit wasn't leaving the women for the men at UT even though she was offered the job once, reportedly.

 

A great coach is a great coach and basketball more than any other sport transfers across genders and levels.

 

I feel he would be a top 10-20 coach in mens basketball easily if he was running a men's program. I can't prove that he would be no more than you can prove he wouldn't be.

No one ever confused Gerry Faust as the best at what he did...:lol2: He probably wasn't even the best high school coach in Cincinnatti at the time let alone the country.

 

I can't stand UConn or Geno, but the dude can flat coach...not just X's and O's but motivating and pushing players to be better than anyone else.

 

We'll never know because he's not leaving there, just like Pat Summit wasn't leaving the women for the men at UT even though she was offered the job once, reportedly.

 

A great coach is a great coach and basketball more than any other sport transfers across genders and levels.

 

I feel he would be a top 10-20 coach in mens basketball easily if he was running a men's program. I can't prove that he would be no more than you can prove he wouldn't be.

 

 

Of course but you’re basing your belief on the success he’s having in a watered down sport. We simply have no evidence to believe he would be any more successful than any other coach.

Gregg Popovich on whether Geno Auriemma could be successful coaching men's basketball ...

 

“The question itself almost makes it sound like what he’s doing isn’t as valuable. He’s doing the same damn thing that we all do, no different from what John Wooden did. So, who cares whether he coaches guys or not? Even if the answer is, of course he could.

 

I’ll give you one good reason — he’s got that wise guy in him, and by that I mean he can screw with you with a sense of humor and that helps you make demands of talented people.”

 

I'm certainly not going to argue with Pop.

Of course but you’re basing your belief on the success he’s having in a watered down sport. We simply have no evidence to believe he would be any more successful than any other coach.

 

The biggest reason it looks watered down is Geno. If he didn't exist there would probably be at least 5 other teams that would have won a national title over the last 10 years. His dominance makes the rest of the sport look weak.

 

I'm basing my thoughts on the fact that past success is the best predictor of future success.

 

Do you think women are so inferior that the coaching they receive, the game plans and motivation from the coach is too low level to transfer over to the men's game?

 

Watch his teams fundementally and show me a men's team that wouldn't be better if they were fundementally as good. What he coaches would directly transfer over to the men's game with very few changes.

The biggest reason it looks watered down is Geno. If he didn't exist there would probably be at least 5 other teams that would have won a national title over the last 10 years. His dominance makes the rest of the sport look weak.

 

I'm basing my thoughts on the fact that past success is the best predictor of future success.

 

Do you think women are so inferior that the coaching they receive, the game plans and motivation from the coach is too low level to transfer over to the men's game?

 

Watch his teams fundementally and show me a men's team that wouldn't be better if they were fundementally as good. What he coaches would directly transfer over to the men's game with very few changes.

 

Would he have more success in men's basketball than, say, John Brannen? If so, why?

Would he have more success in men's basketball than, say, John Brannen? If so, why?

 

Yes, he would have better than slightly over .500 winning percentage. As for why I take his resume' and what Pop said.

 

What make you think he wouldn't be?

Yes, he would have better than slightly over .500 winning percentage. As for why I take his resume' and what Pop said.

 

What make you think he wouldn't be?

 

His resume tells us nothing about how he would do. Kudos to him for building a 60s version of the UCLA Wooden teams. However, the talent pools are so different you cannot assume success in the small pool of talent translates to the big pool. Way too much talent on the men's side spread out across the country.

His resume tells us nothing about how he would do. Kudos to him for building a 60s version of the UCLA Wooden teams. However, the talent pools are so different you cannot assume success in the small pool of talent translates to the big pool. Way too much talent on the men's side spread out across the country.

 

When he started he wasn't getting that talent, he and UCONN were an unknown commodity. He had to win with what he could get...then after the wins started building up and titles came, he started getting more and more elite talent. Yes he gets some of the best of the best now...as do all of the best coaches.

 

You've given no sound reason as to why you don't think he would be successful, just your opinion. My opinion is that he would be very successful and your's is that he wouldn't be...there we are.

His resume tells us nothing about how he would do. Kudos to him for building a 60s version of the UCLA Wooden teams. However, the talent pools are so different you cannot assume success in the small pool of talent translates to the big pool. Way too much talent on the men's side spread out across the country.

 

So, Wooden wasn't a great coach either?

So, Wooden wasn't a great coach either?

 

You read that analogy wrong. The analogy was in the results - not in how they got there.

 

Anyone that thinks having great success in the women's game is anywhere NEAR the same as it is in the men's game doesn't IMO understand the talent pool differences.

 

I was asked to say why Geno would NOT be as successful. Unlike many in this discussion I have no reason to believe ANYTHING. Some of you guys are assuming the game is apples-to-apples. Not true. Not close. So I'm not saying he would NOT. I'm saying those who say he would are GUESSING.

As successful? Not a chance. I do think he could run a top tier program and win a couple national championships though.

 

This.

Impossible question to answer.

 

He'd be just as likely to succeed as he would be to fail IMO. It may be the same game, but I feel coaching men at the highest level and coaching women at the highest level would be two completely different animals.

 

Question for those of you that are sure he would be able to replicate, even partially, his success in the women's game...Why hasn't he ?

 

Why hasn't he moved to men's ball ? Why haven't athletic directors been ringing his phone off the hook and throwing millions of dollars at him ?

 

If the transition would be so easy, why isn't the greatest women's college coach of all time ever interviewed for coaching position in men's ball ?

 

Unless he's stated previously that he's not interested in any way in coaching men, the questions above tell me that the athletic directors don't have as much faith in him as some of you do.

Impossible question to answer.

 

He'd be just as likely to succeed as he would be to fail IMO. It may be the same game, but I feel coaching men at the highest level and coaching women at the highest level would be two completely different animals.

 

Question for those of you that are sure he would be able to replicate, even partially, his success in the women's game...Why hasn't he ?

 

Why hasn't he moved to men's ball ? Why haven't athletic directors been ringing his phone off the hook and throwing millions of dollars at him ?

 

If the transition would be so easy, why isn't the greatest women's college coach of all time ever interviewed for coaching position in men's ball ?

 

Unless he's stated previously that he's not interested in any way in coaching men, the questions above tell me that the athletic directors don't have as much faith in him as some of you do.

 

He has said repeatedly that he has no interest. Just like Pat Summit who could have had the UT men's job, but never considered it because she was dedicated to growing the women's game...Geno has basically said the same thing.

 

I think his AD has asked him about the UConn men's team in the past and he wasn't interested.

 

We may never know how many times he's been approached by AD's. They won't say because he turned them down and he won't say because he doesn't want recruits or players thinking that he could consider it.